Forum:TC:Twi'lek freedom fighters

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Twi'lek freedom fighters

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Graestan(Talk) 13:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Twi'lek freedom fighters (talk - history - links - logs)

This article seems to conjecture in the extreme, and borders on speculation. Now, this might be my deletionism talking, but the article appears to be an extremely informal group rather than an organized resistance. A group so informal that to have an article on it would be ridiculous. I did not watch the episode, but just by looking at the article's history, there appears to be debate over whether this should be deleted, not to mention that it was created by an anon. Chack Jadson (Talk) 21:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete

  1. I don't think I explained my reasons too well, but the big one is just that this group of freedom fighters doesn't appear to exist—rather, it's a fanon term for a couple of Twi'leks who fight for freedom, and not as part of an organized group. Chack Jadson (Talk) 21:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep

  1. They were directly referred to in the episode guide for "Liberty on Ryloth" (twice as a group), and Mace Windu addressed them (or stated their name) as such at least once during the episode. --CC7567 20px-Rex.png talk 21:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. Actually, they were called the "Twi'lek freedom fighters" or even Freedom Fighters in the source and they were at least organized because they had a base of operations, a large army, a following, etc. Not to mention Mace Windu thought the group would be invaluable to the siege. This article has much potential. (Edit conflict) NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 21:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  3. I don't think this article warrants deletion. It only needs to be worked on and possibily renamed to something like "Cham Syndulla's freedom fighters". They are a fairly individual rebel group, not just generic twi'leks. Gry Sarth 22:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  4. JMAS Hey, it's me! 22:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  5. I've never said this before and may never say this again, but per that guy with the clone designation. As an aside, if crime fighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight? -- Darth Culator (Talk) 22:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  6. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 22:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  7. IFYLOFD (Come with me if you want to live.) 23:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  8. If that's what Mace Windu calls them, I'm not inclined to argue. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  9. Per CC7567 and Culator. Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 02:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  10. Canonical name. Mauser 09:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Move to Twi'lek resistance

  1. While it might be a conjectural title, it's more suitable. "Twi'lek freedom fighters" in the episode guide just means freedom fighters that are Twi'lek, not the name of an actual organization. Also, it violates the non-plural naming convention, unless it's confirmed to be an actual official name of an organization (ala Prophets of the Dark Side). -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 22:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • If anyone could give reasons for why they're voting "keep" rather than here, it'd be nice to see them. Not that I'm questioning anyone's right to vote anywhere, but I'd like to know that people have noticed and read the third option, and what's wrong with it. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 00:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I think that it's best to go with the known title, instead of a less-conjectural one. I know that "freedom fighters" wasn't officially used, but it was used, and it's all I see to go after. --CC7567 20px-Rex.png talk 00:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't think the "singular title" rule is meant to apply to conjectural titles for groups. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't see why it shouldn't be. Anyway, "Twi'lek freedom fighters" is not the name of the group, it is what it's members are referred to as. So, I suppose if people don't agree with me, another article can be made for the organization and this one can be for its members (ala Prophet of the Dark Side/Prophets of the Dark Side and Stormtrooper/Stormtrooper Corps). -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 00:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
          • I'd be inclined to merge the first pair (not sure which title would be better, I admit, since the "singular" rule for the rank conflicts with the "canonical name" rule for the organization), and keep the second pair separate since not all stormtroopers are part of the Imperial-era corps described in that article (plus some types of stormies aren't described in the main stormtrooper article.) As for this article, I wouldn't want a separate "Twi'lek freedom fighter" article, but a "freedom fighter" article might be worth writing if we can pull in other examples of the term (sort of like mercenary vs. Brommstaad Mercenaries or pirate vs. Cavrilhu Pirates.) —Silly Dan (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. Moved vote. --CC7567 20px-Rex.png talk 22:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • The group as an organization seems to be controversial, as it was more of a compilation of Twi'leks rather than a group. --CC7567 20px-Rex.png talk 21:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Gry Sarth: Although Syndulla was their leader, naming them as belonging to him sounds like it would conflict with the official sources that state them as "freedom fighters" or "Twi'lek freedom fighters". Yes, they are an individual group, but so far they're the only rebel group of Twi'leks, and that doesn't make them generic. --CC7567 20px-Rex.png talk 22:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)